"Mustang Mach E" Confirmed, Reservations Begin Immediately After Nov 17 Live-Streamed Reveal

[martinjlm]

actually that's not that big of a factor. The prices are skyrocketing because the money to the consumer is "cheap". Consumers are buying payments, not final prices. Just listen to your local sales guy. He's pushing payments as the metric of affordability.

the average (?) consumer (@martinjlm I'm sure has the data) can afford only ~500/mo payment. When the loans are written for 60, 72, even 84 months and banks are very willing to roll negative equity onto the new loan (previously unheard of) there is no longer any downward price pressure. If 36mo terms at 500/mo the car has to cost less than 20K. But that can now balloon out to 36k and more. Go back 15 years and new car prices were solidly affordable. Go back further and people were paying for cars out of cash savings.

Once the easy finance took off manufacturers kept hiking the price to match the longer/looser standards.

I wish I did have that data. I've been in meetings / at conferences where those numbers are tossed around but they have yet to find a nice resting spot in my over-worked memory.

Go back 20 years and people were taking out home equity loans and buying their vehicles "cash" from the distribution and then writing off mortgage interest on their income taxes. Ah, those were the days.

Sponsored

 

[lacanteen]

They'll sell tons of them in California, the state that taxes gas to encourage renewable energy and encourages electric cars. The same state that shuts off the power when the wind blows.

 

[Hack]

One thing I'm having a hard time over. It's pretty clear your "traditional" Mustang buyer (us!) is not interested in this car and won't buy it. Your "traditional" EV buyer would probably never consider a traditional Mustang either as its a gas guzzling dinosaur. So why would Ford think branding this as a Mustang would attract EV buyers? Potentially, you're alienating your two biggest markets!

Of course, there are many shades of grey between those two extremes, but it still puzzles me why Ford took this decision.

I agree. Mustang is for knuckle draggers and red necks. Expensive electric vehicles are for the effete. If Ford is trying to go after Tesla and building an expensive electric car, it seems to me that this car should be a Lincoln. Is Ford saying that Lincoln doesn't attract buyers?

 

[Norm Peterson]

From the Truth About Cars

So just stop it, okay? If you don’t like the EcoStangMachBoostE, then don’t buy one. Better yet, stop talking about it. If you’re really angry about something on the internet, the worst possible way to protest it is to click it, share it, and comment on it. But Ford was counting on you doing exactly that, and y’all fell for it. The only fool that you’re fooling is the fool that is you.

Not following that logic for this situation. Without counterpoint, all anybody gets to see is Ford's propaganda , , , err, advertising. Both in what is stated and what isn't and left for you to infer. And Ford might interpret the lack of opposition as unanimous acceptance.


Norm

 

[Twin Turbo]

I agree. Mustang is for knuckle draggers and red necks. Expensive electric vehicles are for the effete. If Ford is trying to go after Tesla and building an expensive electric car, it seems to me that this car should be a Lincoln. Is Ford saying that Lincoln doesn't attract buyers?

Lincoln "Quiet Flight"...........surely the perfect philosophy for an EV?

 

[martinjlm]

I agree. Mustang is for knuckle draggers and red necks. Expensive electric vehicles are for the effete. If Ford is trying to go after Tesla and building an expensive electric car, it seems to me that this car should be a Lincoln. Is Ford saying that Lincoln doesn't attract buyers?

Hold on, it's coming. Ford is buying a skateboard chassis from Rivian and it will more than likely underpin a Lincoln sedan or CUV.

 

[BuckeyeBOSS]

One thing I'm having a hard time over. It's pretty clear your "traditional" Mustang buyer (us!) is not interested in this car and won't buy it. Your "traditional" EV buyer would probably never consider a traditional Mustang either as its a gas guzzling dinosaur. So why would Ford think branding this as a Mustang would attract EV buyers? Potentially, you're alienating your two biggest markets!

Of course, there are many shades of grey between those two extremes, but it still puzzles me why Ford took this decision.

That's my line of thinking too. The car itself will attract a certain type of buyer, the Mustang nameplate will not appeal to that buyer at all. What using the Mustang name on a vehicle like this DOES do is what you see in this thread and around the net on other enthusiast sites, it tends to piss off or at least puzzle most enthusiasts. The vehicle itself is probably a win in the goofy current car market, attaching Mustang to it makes absolutely no sense though.

EDIT: Also, I think people, even Ford brass here, underestimate how long stereotypes and impressions last in the car world. I still see the "mullet" comments about modern Camaros, which are world class sports cars in their own right nowadays. I still see and hear people buying Hondas for "reliability", even though they have slipped under industry average reliability (especially Acura) for years now. Honda is making a killing off their past accomplishments and current image, but has slipped in reliability (actually, a lot of the rest of the industry has likely just caught up and passed them). GM wasted the GTO name on a V8 Grand Am, which was a solid car, but looked boring AF and sold poorly. The Mustang brand and image took DECADES to build, seems stupid to throw it out on this vehicle.

 

[Ericc B]

it seems to me that this car should be a Lincoln. Is Ford saying that Lincoln doesn't attract buyers?

Lincoln is basically a non-existing brand outside the United States. Whereas a rather large part of projected sales of this SUV is outside of the US.

 

[cosmo]

It can't be a Lincoln as the interior wouldn't meet the Lincoln requirements. Cost cutting is in abundance in Battery vehicles due to the costs with the electrification. Can't put in a very nice interior without also driving up the price even higher.

Like it or not, utilizing the Mustang nameplate was a good idea. It certainly has created a buzz, partial controversy and partial excitement.

The Venn diagram between traditional Mustang owners and people who would buy an electric vehicle are virtually completely separate circles, so whether or not traditional mustang fans like this vehicle in the end doesn't really matter as they weren't going to buy it anyways.

I think judging the vehicle on its own, it's great. I would've preferred it simply being called "Mach E" but I don't really care in the end. I'll be looking at this and a Bronco in a year or so.

 

[Norm Peterson]

Yeah yeah I've heard it all, your analogy is stupid. The Mustang car is not on the chopping block here. No amount of angry men yelling would have stopped Ford from putting a horse on this electric SUV. Get over it, you're not some special person that saved the Mustang and neither are anyone else.

I think Ford may have learned what not to do about applying the Mustang label to a completely different sort of platform from the Probe and didn't let the naming be known as far in advance this time - I think when they eventually dropped hints this time that they were toying with us (with Mach 1 and Mach E without the 'Mustang' part).

​

I've cut my teeth on the Mustang since the mid 90s, I love the car... and even I can think for myself enough to know that it doesn't matter at all.​

Mid 90s puts the Mustang-Probe episode before your time. Your mid-90s Mustang simply wouldn't have been what you remember it to have been . . . you might not have even become a Mustang fan if the Mustang had gone FWD in 1988. Think about that for a moment or two, where in 1988 Ford might have removed the Mustang from your future for you.

Take it from somebody who's been driving for as long as the Mustang has been around, and who actually owned a car built on the same platform that Ford wanted to hang the late 1980s Mustang name on. FWIW, we kept it for almost 19 1/2 years. The car really was that good, but it absolutely was not the Mustang that either of us know the Mustang to be. Not even close. Eventually, I even put stiffer springs on it that were nominally Probe springs. After us, our oldest granddaughter enjoyed driving it for about 4 years, before passing it on to a third owner.


Norm

 

[martinjlm]

I think Ford may have learned what not to do about applying the Mustang label to a completely different sort of platform from the Probe and didn't let the naming be known as far in advance this time - I think when they eventually dropped hints this time that they were toying with us (with Mach 1 and Mach E without the 'Mustang' part).

​

Mid 90s puts the Mustang-Probe episode before your time. Your mid-90s Mustang simply wouldn't have been what you remember it to have been . . . you might not have even become a Mustang fan if the Mustang had gone FWD in 1988. Think about that for a moment or two, where in 1988 Ford might have removed the Mustang from your future for you.

Take it from somebody who's been driving for as long as the Mustang has been around, and who actually owned a car built on the same platform that Ford wanted to hang the late 1980s Mustang name on. FWIW, we kept it for almost 19 1/2 years. The car really was that good, but it absolutely was not the Mustang that either of us know the Mustang to be. Not even close. Eventually, I even put stiffer springs on it that were nominally Probe springs. After us, our oldest granddaughter enjoyed driving it for about 4 years, before passing it on to a third owner.


Norm

The difference between the Probe debacle and the Mach E skirmish is that the Probe was going to be THE Mustang. Mach E is AN EXTENSION of the Mustang name. With the Probe scenario, people would not have been able to buy a Fox body. Under the Mach E scenario you can still get a GT / GT350 / GT500. That's a pretty big distinction in my book.

 

[Norm Peterson]

Poll at the top of this thread. 52% answer "no change" when asked if this would make them more or less likely to buy a Mustang coupe. And the people that answered "less likely" are straight up brain dead.

The poll options do not reflect the full variety of possible opinions, and for many "no change" was probably the closest choice.

I don't mind revealing that my choice as "no change", though that was with some explanation. Not being in new car shopping mode at the moment means that I can take a more neutral "wait and see" attitude than if I was starting to look with any seriousness and putting together a short list.

Basically, if the Mustang as a ponycar stays about where it is today, I'd be no more and no less likely to buy one. But if it starts to pick up SUV/CUV cues/attributes you can count me out right now.

The ponycar Mustang would probably have to morph more toward the character of my S197 GT the way that car is being developed - perhaps think GT/PP2 with early-S197 technology content here - to make me extremely likely to buy another one. Unfortunately, I don't expect that to happen.


Norm

 

[OX1]

Mach E is AN EXTENSION of the Mustang name.

The people who by far have the most emotion about it, are the one's that HATE it. So the few that would buy this thing
ONLY because it is now named Mustang are way down there in number and probably last in true motivation
(I guarantee you they are not as happy about it, as I am pissed).

You can't buy this high emotion at any price. Mach-E "people" won't have ANY skin in the game of buying overpriced mustangs
(at least not due to an emotional pruchase), spending a zillion on parts, making clubs/boards, having meets, buying other mundane
Fords after loving uniqueness mustang, and generally going way above the norm to support Ford (even when they don't deserve it).

They will go buy a Yenko-E next week and not care one way or the other that it's not a Ford or "Mustang". NASCAR tried this and was
initially successful, now they might as well close up shop because they lost that super passionate loyal fan base, for the fly-by-nighters.

 

[shogun32]

Mach E is AN EXTENSION of the Mustang name.

which properly belongs assigned to the S550 with electric motor that they showed off as a demo in white+blue trim.

Fiesta, Explorer and Focus all come in various drivelines, be it gas, hybrid or EV. Line the sisters up side by side and you can't tell the difference. THAT is the point of a model line. Ditto Honda with it's Civic or Accord or RAV4. The sisters all look identical no matter the drive line and can properly be called Civic-E or -EV or whatever tag you want to put on it.

Would BMW be so STUPID as to make a raised M3 that has the roofline of an X3, but cribbed the M3 grill and tail lights and an electric driveline and still call it an M3-E? Of course not. They'd call it an X3-something.

This sport(y) electric CUV was ABSOLUTELY a good idea (props to Hackett for tearing the EV group a new arsehole) as opposed to the utterly lazy crap they had been wasting time on. But it doesn't the least bit resemble a Mustang silhouette. You can say it was 'Mustang inspired' (driving fun, performance inclined) and I have no beef. You can maybe do a riff on the triple tail lights and headlights too if you want must.

But pick a different horsey name at minimum.

 

[Norm Peterson]

The difference between the Probe debacle and the Mach E skirmish is that the Probe was going to be THE Mustang. Mach E is AN EXTENSION of the Mustang name. With the Probe scenario, people would not have been able to buy a Fox body. Under the Mach E scenario you can still get a GT / GT350 / GT500. That's a pretty big distinction in my book.

Understood. But I'm looking longer term than the first year or two of Mach E. I don't see much happening to the S550 over that time span.

One thing that I'm a bit uneasy about is the possibility that the Mach E might start influencing the ponycar toward being a CUV and gradually inching the ponycar to what the Probe debacle was trying to accomplish in one fell swoop.


With the last car of ours that became something of a toy in mind (a 1979 Malibu that we bought new and kept until 2012), I need to be looking at least 5 or 6, maybe 10 years out at this point for my next "for me" car purchase, as I can see having my '08 GT for at least that long, absent anything unforeseen. Overall since 1970, our car buying cycle has averaged out to about 7 years, and we just bought the WRX in my sig early this year. Although that was unexpected (not involving a crash of any sort), 7 years would put our next purchase out to at least 2026.


Norm

Sponsored